Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: The National Park Second Amendment Restoration and Personal Protection Act of 2006

  1. #1

    Default The National Park Second Amendment Restoration and Personal Protection Act of 2006

    Outgoing Sen. Allen of Virginia introduced SB 4057 a couple of weeks ago. I personally find it incomprehensible that I can not carry for personal protection while in a National Park. I would hope that each of us that would like to reaffirm our second amendment rights would encourage Sen. Murkowski and Sen. Stevens to jump on this bill, and urge Rep. Young to introduce our own version in the House. As we all know, if this bill is not passed this session, it will not pass.

    S.4057, The National Park Second Amendment Restoration and Personal Protection Act of 2006

    The meat of the bill is:

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law (including regulations), the possession or carrying of a firearm at a unit of the National Park System in compliance with Federal law and the law of the State in which the unit of the National Park System is located shall not be prohibited.

    I have not seen this introduced in this forum yet, so I apologize if it has already been addressed.

  2. #2
    Member Float Pilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Kachemak Bay Alaska
    Posts
    3,943

    Default

    Yes.....

    I have often wondered why OUR employees (the parkees) think they can tell us that we do not have the right to self defense while on OUR property....

  3. #3
    Member stevelyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Fairbanksan in Aleutian Hell
    Posts
    1,316

    Default

    Long overdue. I've lived up here for nearly 20 years. I've avoided the National Parks because I don't like being herded around like cattle and I prefer not to give up my rights by stepping on the King's land.

    I also find the ParkStaatsPolizei to be a bit too possessive with OUR land.

    I read on another forum that Senator Allen's replacement James Webb, has at least given lip service support to the bill. I guess we'll see when it comes up for a vote.

    I've written our Congressional delegation urging support for this when it first came up as a proposal for regulation change. This better because it's a law rather than a regulation change
    Now what ?

  4. #4
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Bethel, Cantwell, Fort Yukon, Skagway, Chevak and Point Hope
    Posts
    967

    Default

    Well if somebody had an extra $200,000 laying around he/she could become a test case for the 2nd Amendment by carrying in a National Park and hope to be cited. Takes about $200,000 to get too the US Supreme Court.

  5. #5
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    204

    Default

    Sounds like a case Wayne Anthony Ross should take on pro-bono, if he would.

  6. #6
    Member WinMag_300's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    132

    Default

    I always thought it was strange that state issued CCW licenses don't apply to federal property even if that property is located in the issuing state.

    For example, the CCW is not valid on post office property since it is federally owned. The situation also gets sticky if you're hunting on state-owned land and cross over into federal land. Automatically, the rules change.

    I wouldn't want to be a test case for the law because it is too unreasonable. No telling how they would throw the book at you and you may never see the light of day outside of a cell.
    A man is rich in proportion to the number of things he can afford to let alone. - Henry David Thoreau

  7. #7
    Member stevelyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Fairbanksan in Aleutian Hell
    Posts
    1,316

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WinMag_300 View Post
    I always thought it was strange that state issued CCW licenses don't apply to federal property even if that property is located in the issuing state.

    For example, the CCW is not valid on post office property since it is federally owned. The situation also gets sticky if you're hunting on state-owned land and cross over into federal land. Automatically, the rules change.
    Not true. A popular misconception kinda perpetuated by fed pukes themselves by not clarifying their rules. You can carry on post office property. National Park, military posts, secure areas of airports and federal courthouses are the only places where carry is prohibited.

    Military post carry bans are more or less recycled policies from past post commanders that never changed to reflect changing laws. Permission can actually be obtained from the post commanders.
    Carry on all other federal lands which include national forests, wildlife refuges, BLM lands, post offices and others defer to the state laws of the state they're located in.
    Now what ?

  8. #8
    Member WinMag_300's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    132

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stevelyn View Post
    Not true. ...Carry on all other federal lands which include national forests, wildlife refuges, BLM lands, post offices and others defer to the state laws of the state they're located in.
    Stevelyn, it actually is true about federal property. When I go to my local post office, there is a sign that states that it is a felony to carry on federal property without federal clearance. I found some references, but the following one is the clearest. "Issues pertaining to firearms on federal property is subject to federal law and regulations". It does not revert to the state.

    http://attorneygeneral.state.wy.us/dci/CWPFAQ.html See FAQ #12
    A man is rich in proportion to the number of things he can afford to let alone. - Henry David Thoreau

  9. #9
    Member stevelyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Fairbanksan in Aleutian Hell
    Posts
    1,316

    Default

    What I've found when you read the fine print it says you are prohibited from carrying on PO property for illegal purposes.

    FAQ #12 on the link is rather vague in it's answer. It asks about NPs, but answers as fed property in general, and says nothing about POs.

    Here in AK, the only fed property we're prohibited from carrying on is NP lands (with exceptions), the fed courthouse and of course catonment areas of military posts.
    Now what ?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •